User talk:HighInBC

Tokens from other editors:

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Numberguy6 0 0 0 01:36, 1 June 2024 5 days, 3 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk page archives - Archive index

• Note: I was once known as Chillum, so perhaps you already know me. HighInBC 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
• Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.

New block evasion on Talk:Serbs of Croatia

IP editor 5.144.98.84 has restarted the semi-edit request that was previously discussed. Their IP comes from the same general location as the previous ones. Per your request, I wanted to let you know. I have also rejected the request. Thanks. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. HighInBC 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Stabila711, it's obvious you just carried out the request by this admin to deny my edit request. Your reason that you do not see the consensus in the only RfC that is closed on the very same page, a few scrolls above is really pathetic. I hope you realize that you carried out a request that is really against the whole principle you stand as an admin. I hope you realize that and that you apologize. You've seen my response where I point out to the consensus, and you ignore it. Which reason do you have to deny a request to implement a consensus established in a RfC, closed by another admin. You haven't even contacted the admin who closed the RfC, so that says everything about you not seeing the consensus. Please go to the talk page and look at the closure of the RfC that was done by another admin and reconsider my request. We can even contact the admin that closed the RfC, but don't just carry out unreasonable request only because they come from another admin. This admin is clearly in break of his rights and he makes deeply immoral acts. He is denying the implementation of a valid consensus, and he is helping another user in his disruptive behavior. He even offered him to restrict any page he wishes in the below section. I think that says all about this admin. I hope you realize your mistake. 194.226.8.147 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought we already settled that with a giant RFC that had a clear result... I will check it out. HighInBC 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Asdisis socks

This one as well. He is using countless IPs and accunts. FkpCascais (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy really wants to rewrite history. At this point I am willing to semi-protect whichever pages he is being most disruptive on. Let me know where that is. HighInBC 15:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear lord what happend here? OK HighInBC, this user is totally obsessed, he uses several accounts often even impersonating someone else agreeing with himself. I lost the account already of the IP adresses he uses, but ever since he said that he will be using different IPs and no one will be able to stop him. I am also suspicious about the IPs alegedly opposing him, all I trust are the establshed accounts. Regarding his last socks, they are all the IPs found today and yesterday at this dscussions: Talk:Serbs of Croatia, Talk:Novak Djokovic, Talk:Yugoslavia, Talk:Austria-Hungary and User talk:FkpCascais. This is becoming socking of monumental dimensions. FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I have semi-protected Talk:Serbs of Croatia for a week, it was the only one that currently has continued block evasion since your last message. Let me know if they become active on the other talk pages. I consider it likely, however do with to minimize the amount of active protection. HighInBC 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Uninvited guest(s)

HighInBC I will consider to report you if try to do that. You very well know what is the procedure to deal with socks. You also very well know that you can't say someone is a sock without any misconduct present. I do not exhibit any misconduct. I opened a request for edit and other editors agrees with my suggestion and the RfC I opened was successful. In fact the only present misconduct are personal attack this user is making against me. You are also exhibiting a misconduct by helping this user to deny the implementation of a consensus on the Serbs of Croatia article. You are very aware of my request , and you denied it without any reason provided. You then asked another admin to deny my second request. You are working directly against a valid consensus and that's no way an admin should behave. Even If I were (and I am not) a sock, your actions are shameful. If you try to restrict the Serbs of Croatia article, that will be the final straw. You along with other editor who is calling me a sock in several discussions instead of making a report, will be reported. Also your open hand offer to another editor to protect any page he wishes is against the rules and you should know that. Especially since he is trying to ban everyone who doesn't agree with him, not just me. Go and look at the discussion on Serbs of Croatia article. Not only that is against the rules, but it is highly immoral to let the other editor who is trying to block numerous people have the power to protect the article. Especially this user who is discussing in bad faith. I'm warning you in good faith to come to you senses. If you protect the article you will be reported because you assist another user in his disruptive behavior.194.226.8.147 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems they're having another sock (registered account): look at [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.175 (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That unfortunately is a legit user that doesn't know what hit him, but I continued his discussion because a POV pushing user tried to do the same thing to me and another user of Serbs of Croatia article. I'm glad I brought that to the attention of other editors who agreed with me. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A legit blocked sockpuppet user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.175 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. However you, even if you are not a sock, you exhibit misconduct. You are not allowed to change other people's comments. You could be banned only for that, not even going into whether you are a sock. I'm not being accused by any of other long time experienced editors that I'm a sock, not am I being accused of any misconduct. They all agree with my suggestion and FkpCascais and you are the only one who are disruptive. There are at least 5-6 editors in all of the discussion I've participated in the last month, and no one of them complained on my behavior nor anyone said I'm some king of a sock. That leaves you dear IP the only one who suggests that along with the FkpCascais. So I'm sorry if I jump the gun. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Not really - time will show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.175 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, as long I'm editing in good faith you can't even open a SPI. As I said, I'm being supported in virtually every discussion I opened in the last month or so, only this one user constantly wants to block me. How do you explain that other experienced users didn't have any complaint towards me, but supported my suggestions as valid? I'm sorry this admin doesn't see that only one of all editors that participated in now 4-5 discussions with me had complained and without any good reason. He simply said, yep that's him, let's block him, and this admin believed him. Well I hope he reconsiders because he is helping a disruptive editor and that's not just my word, but also the word of at least one of that experienced editors that participated 2 discussions along with me and FkpCascais. I know my ip changing makes some suspicion, but what can I say to you. Go and complain to someone who invented these things. I for sure haven't. Everyone's ip change. In fact, when someone has the same ip for a long time it can indicate he is using a proxy. I'm afraid that if I make an account it will be blocked, like the account of Recihal who has no connections to me. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you are versed in changing IPs matters? A good sign of a sockpuppet. --77.105.19.175 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy Canadian thanksgiving folks. HighInBC 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course Im not supporting myself. I have the support of all senior editors. You are the only one who is trying to block me. Not just me, but others as well. As other senior editors have confirmed, you are not discussing in good faith. 194.152.253.46 (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.178.97 (talk)

Two quick notes

1. I don't think I can write note #2 in haiku, so I guess I'll have to get second priority.
2. User talk:166.171.121.70 — this is clearly a Kumioko address (check the IP's fourth edit), although given his demonstrated ability to change addresses, sockblocks for the two IPs wouldn't help.

Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Fairly likely I would say. Not much to do other than RBI. HighInBC 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Query about editor

Here you go, dear admin. A clear disruptive act by this user. Why do you choose to support him in this clear disruptions? An experienced editor who closed the RfC opens a discussion to tell about the consensus and this disruptive editor is directly misleading the discussion so to prevent the consensus to be applied. Even in this post he is making personal attacks on my behalf, like I by myself "established" the consensus. Please remove the restriction from the talk page. I'm unable to say that the RfC followed a discussion which yielded no consensus. Even if the first discussion yielded a consensus, which it had not, then the RfC which followed would still be the present standing consensus. I would like to ask that disruptive editor to point to the present consensus, but I can't because you restricted the page. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You are getting your RFC reviewed, don't come to me if you don't like the response. I looked at that diff and I don't see a single inaccurate word. You just are not very good at sock puppetry, you are very obvious. You are like someone hiding with half their body sticking out going "You can't see me!". These silly games are disruptive to the encyclopedia and we have no intention in engaging with you in your revisionist version of history. HighInBC 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed? Where? 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Right where you yourself linked too: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Clarification_of_RFC. HighInBC 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

?? This isn't a review. Apart from that you are not able to read and understand, you as an admin should know that a review's of a formally closed RfC's are not done in such manner. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my understanding it not up to par with your perception of the world, that must be awkward for you. HighInBC 21:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I was pinging the editor to deal with this misunderstanding, yours or mine. You would have done the same if you were acting in good faith, instead of making this mild insult in the meantime. I don't think this behavior is decent of and admin. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with your opinion of admins, I have read your various posts at ANI. I have no interest in this RFC one way or another, so why would I contact Albino about it? You are the one interesting in this RFC, and it is getting attention. HighInBC 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadly it looks like I am being dragged into this farther than I would like. The section I opened was a clarification of the RFC, not a review. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I also feel I'm being dragged. It was obvious that that is not a review. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi HighInBC. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Interesting. HighInBC 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)